International Multilingual Research Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hmrj20

CLIL and SIOP: an effective partnership?

Patricia Bárcena-Toyos

To cite this article: Patricia Bárcena-Toyos (2023) CLIL and SIOP: an effective partnership?,
International Multilingual Research Journal, 17:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2022.2075191
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2075191

Published online: 10 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 789

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmrj20
INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
2023, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 1–14
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2075191

CLIL and SIOP: an effective partnership?

Patricia Bárcena-Toyos
Faculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR)

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This case study examines the use of the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP®) Model as a framework in the design of an in-service
training to answer CLIL teachers’ methodological needs to integrate con­ KEYWORDS
tent and language. The study also analyzes teachers’ receptiveness of the SIOP; CLIL; integration;
use of SIOP in a CLIL bilingual program to facilitate the integration of teaching strategies
content and language. It follows case study methodology and draws on
thematic analysis to examine data collected from teacher interviews, ques­
tionnaires and observations of the training workshop. Findings showed that
one of teachers’ main difficulties was their lack of academic language
awareness, and it is concluded that extensive professional development
training drawing on some of the principles behind SIOP could assist CLIL
teachers to integrate language in content classes. Teachers’ receptiveness
of using the SIOP concludes its suitability as a PD training to help non-
language specialist teachers systematically plan for language in their con­
tent classes. However, adaptations of the Model are suggested to adjust to
CLIL contexts and teachers’ needs.

Introduction
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which has experienced an exponential growth in
Spain in the last decades, is the “European approach to bilingual education” (Pérez Cañado, 2018,
p. 212) with an “explicit dual focus on subject-specific content and language” (van Kampen, Meirink,
Admiraal, & Berry, 2020, p. 856). In CLIL programs, students learn some content-subjects from the
curriculum in a foreign language, while other content-subjects are taught in the L1. Content CLIL
lessons are usually taught by content-specialists without training in foreign language (FL) meth­
odologies, and with a minimum proficiency of English, so, CLIL teachers have to take on the role of
content and language teacher without any previous training on the CLIL approach (Bárcena-Toyos,
2020), facing the additional challenge of designing tasks with attention to academic language in
content areas (Lyster, 2019). Initial teacher education tends to focus on either content or language
teaching, so CLIL teachers find it difficult to integrate content and the foreign language, as they have
not been trained in using an integrated approach. This lack of training has been identified as
a common issue of CLIL teachers across countries where this approach is implemented (e.g.
Karabassova, 2018; Koopman, Skeet, & de Graaff, 2014).
While these so-called bilingual programs were rapidly growing, provision of CLIL teacher
education fell behind (Pérez Cañado, 2016). The requirements for teaching CLIL in some countries,
such as Spain, focus on a minimum proficiency level in the foreign language, but so far, there are no
additional methodological requirements, which makes it difficult for CLIL teachers to know what
their role is (Pavón Vázquez & Ellison, 2013). Educators can teach in a CLIL program with little or
no knowledge of the theoretical tenets of the approach or the practical ways in which to carry out
integration in the classrooms (Pérez-Cañado, 2014). This is more evident in secondary education,

CONTACT Patricia Bárcena-Toyos patricia.barcena@unir.net Faculty of Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

(UNIR), Madrid, Spain
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

where teachers are area specialists, and they are faced with the task of teaching content concepts in
a language which is neither theirs nor the students’ first language (Nikula, Dafouz, Moore, & Smit,
2016). Teachers need to know not only the understanding of how integration is achieved, but also
the tools for achieving it (Lucero, 2015). Until now, those tools have been eminently theoretical,
capturing “the what rather than the how of CLIL” (Coyle, Halbach, Meyer, & Schuck, 2018, p. 350).
It is critical to consider bilingual teachers’ training needs (Durán-Martínez & Beltrán-Llavador,
2020) and design in-service training to close the gap between researchers’ understanding of CLIL
pedagogies and the actual application of what teachers understand as CLIL in their classes (van
Kampen et al., 2020). To that aim, in-service training should be designed around CLIL teachers’
methodological needs to deliver lessons in another language (Custodio-Espinar & García-Ramos,
2020). Providing teachers with strategies, techniques and practical resources to integrate language
becomes a necessity to ease their task of delivering quality CLIL instruction, without losing on either
language or content.
A focal concern of CLIL research is the difference between CLIL methodological approaches and
other forms of content-based education. Studies that have examined the similarities between CLIL
and other content-based learning approaches call on further research to enhance and promote CLIL
practice (Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014). The present case study responds to these calls by
examining the potential use of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP®) Model as
a framework to design in-service training to address CLIL teachers’ methodological needs to
integrate content and language, based on the similarities between the theoretical foundations of
both approaches (see Table 1). The main aim of this research is to consider the suitability of SIOP as
a framework for the design of adequate professional development (PD) training for non-language
specialists in a CLIL context. Additionally, the study examines teachers’ receptiveness of the use of
SIOP to integrate content and language in CLIL classes.

The CLIL teacher: profile, needs and training

Several studies have depicted the necessary competences of a CLIL teacher to deliver quality instruction
(see Bertaux, Coonan, Frigols, & Mehisto, 2010; Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, & Frigols, 2010). Pérez Cañado
(2018) outlined the following CLIL teacher competences: pedagogical (methodologies and strategies to
integrate language and content), linguistic (proficiency in the FL and academic language awareness),
scientific (pedagogical principles of CLIL), organizational (management skills to provide opportunities

Table 1. SIOP and CLIL compared (Adapted from Bárcena-Toyos, 2020).

Main
Features SIOP CLIL
Definition “Approach for teaching [grade-level] content to ELLs in “Dual-focused educational approach in which an
strategic ways that make the subject matter concepts additional language is used for the learning and
comprehensible while promoting the students’ English teaching of both content and language” (Coyle et al.,
language development” (Echevarria et al., 2013, p. 5) 2010, p. 1)
Context ESL, two-way and sheltered instruction programs Mostly in foreign language (FL) contexts to improve
competence in FL by teaching content in that
language. Also in second language contexts (e.g.
Basque in Spain or Gaelic in Ireland)
Target English language learners (ELLs) in North America. Mostly in Europe, but also in South America, Australia
population and Asia.
- Learners must acquire BICS and CALP
Language - Focus on teaching academic language. - Framework for language learning: Language Triptych
learning (Coyle, 2002) devises language of, for, and through
learning
Language - Both use strategies to make input comprehensible to all learners, such as scaffolding, use of visuals, models,
pedagogies hands-on materials.
Cognition - Both facilitate the use of learning strategies, exposure to appropriate cognitively demanding content and
language, and provides opportunities for interaction
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 3

for meaningful interaction), collaborative (collaboration between content and language teachers and
between CLIL teachers), and personal development (improve through lifelong learning).
Despite recent efforts for improving teacher education, teacher needs remain high (Cabezuelo
Gutiérez & Fernández Fernández, 2014), particularly in terms of pedagogical and linguistic compe­
tences, but also in terms of scientific and organizational competences (Custodio Espinar & García
Ramos, 2020; Pérez Cañado, 2018). These needs are the result of inadequate initial teacher training
(Jover, Fleta, & González, 2016), which could be met with systematic in-service training
(Karabassova, 2018). Yet, studies examining the effectiveness of PD initiatives for CLIL teachers
are still scarce. Lo (2019) analyzed the implementation of a CLIL PD training in Hong Kong and
reported a positive change in the participants’ beliefs and language awareness, leading to a more
advantageous integration of language and content in CLIL lessons.
Lack of training to understand students’ needs seem to be shared with teachers of English
language learners in other forms of content-based instruction (e.g. Franco-Fuenmayor, Padrón, &
Waxman, 2015; Martin, 2018). In fact, Song’s study (2016) concluded that PD training in SIOP had
positive effects on teachers’ integrating practices and on their understanding of the needs of language
learners.

SIOP and CLIL compared

The SIOP, is an instructional “approach for teaching [grade-level] content to English language
learners in strategic ways that make the subject matter concepts comprehensible while promoting
the students’ English language development” (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2013, p. 5). This model has
been used in sheltered instruction and ESL contexts in North America for years now, and it is based
on empirical research in classrooms with ELL students. The SIOP consists of eight components
(lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice &
application, lesson delivery, and review & assessment) that group different instructional strategies for
teachers of ELLs.
As described in Table 1, both approaches differ mainly on the contexts where they are imple­
mented, and on their target populations. On the one hand, SIOP is an approach used to teaching
content to speakers of other languages, usually in mainstream classes. Teachers’ first language is
English, so preparing and teaching classes in the language is not an additional challenge, as it might
be for CLIL teachers who commonly share their status as language learners with students (Nikula
et al., 2016).
Despite these differences, SIOP and CLIL share some common grounds. In fact, integration is
highlighted in SIOP in its emphasis on the interrelation of language and content objectives in every
lesson of the content subject. Like CLIL, the sheltered instruction approach is strongly rooted in the
premise that language learning happens in interaction and through meaningful use (Echevarria et al.,
2013). It draws on research in the field of ESL teaching, demonstrating that English language
learners need both general English, i.e. grammar and vocabulary, and academic English in order
to succeed academically (Echevarria et al., 2013). Following Cummins’ distinction (2000), content-
based instruction must account for basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP). The term BICS refers to the language that students need to
communicate with others in the school context and to interact in everyday situations. However, this
language alone is not enough for nonnative speakers to be successful in the L2 academic context.
Learners also need the language that allows them to compare, classify, debate or summarize the
content of a particular subject area, also known as CALP. However, the controversial nature of the
BICS-CALP risks to interfere with inclusive education and “contribute to standard language ideol­
ogy” (MacSwan, 2020, p. 34). In CLIL, teachers can use the Language Triptych to help them plan for
language, while SIOP focuses on applying different strategies to explicitly teaching academic
language. Nevertheless, both approaches use strategies to integrate language in content lessons and
facilitate language learning, providing opportunities for meaningful interaction, and addressing
4 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

cognitively demanding tasks, which trigger language learning. Teachers are, therefore, encouraged to
use a taxonomy – e.g. Anderson and Krathwhols’s (2001), pp. – in the design of tasks, and to plan for
questions that elicit higher-order thinking.
In CLIL, integration helps dealing with the lack of parity between students’ cognitive levels and
their proficiency level in the L2 (Coyle, Hood & Mash, 2010). The grammatical pedagogical order
that usually happens in language classes, does not happen in CLIL, so CLIL teachers should be
facilitators of opportunities for language learning in the content classroom.
The concept of integration in CBI programs, including CLIL, draws on different theoretical
foundations that come from cognitive theories, learning theories and theories of language learning.
The importance of integration in CLIL is two-fold. First, the lack of parity between students’
cognitive level and their L2 proficiency, make it essential for teachers to adapt their pedagogies in
a way that they are able to cater for the particular needs of this group of students. Second, language
learning follows a progressive pattern that in CLIL contexts is sometimes difficult to follow, due to
the demands of the content subject. Still, and particularly at secondary schools, CLIL teachers are
content area specialists with no or little language awareness (Hansen-Thomas, Langman, &
Sokoloski, 2018). Language awareness concerns three areas of knowledge: knowledge of L2 learning
pedagogies and theories; knowledge of the language forms and functions; and knowledge of the use
of language and language proficiency (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). Conversely, CLIL teachers focus
on key vocabulary (Koopman et al., 2014) whereas other areas, such as grammar and discourse, are
overlooked.
In addition to CLIL teachers’ lack of language awareness, the lack of an integrated curriculum for
CLIL programs makes it difficult for teachers to plan for language and integrate it in their lessons
(Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). In this sense, we should keep in mind that, if true integration of
content and language is to be achieved, it is paramount to find pedagogies that have integration at its
core. Otherwise, these programs are simply teaching subjects in another language, and that is not
what CLIL is about. Based on this rationale, this study examines SIOP as a pedagogy that has been
proven to be effective in providing useful PD training (see Franco-Fuenmayor et al., 2015; Kareva &
Echevarria, 2013) – and that shares many features with CLIL, as it has been justified in this section.
The long tradition of empirical research in North America and their years of empirically testing the
instructional practices of the SIOP could be a springboard for empirical research in CLIL and
provide a rationale behind the adaptation of SIOP in a foreign language setting such as CLIL.

Methodology
Drawing on qualitative case study methodology (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), the present study uses
questionnaires, observations and interviews to analyze teachers’ receptiveness of the use of the SIOP
Model to integrate content and language in content classes and its suitability as a PD training tool in
CLIL contexts.

Description of the case

Before describing the case of this study, it is important to emphasize that the characteristic of CLIL is
that teachers and learners share the same FL (either English or French) and the same first language
(Spanish). In this study, CLIL teachers are content-specialists, which means their initial teacher
education focused almost exclusively on the content area (e.g. Physics or History). In this study,
CLIL teachers are usually referred to as content teachers or specialists, based on their teaching and
educational backgrounds, as opposed to language specialists, who are the FL teachers who teach only
the foreign language and whose teaching and educational backgrounds are focused on teaching
a foreign language.
The unit of analysis of this case study is an integrated program of English and French in a high
school in the North of Spain, which follows the CLIL approach to teaching content subjects in an
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 5

additional language. In this case study, Carlos (pseudonym), the coordinator of the integrated
program, was in charge of designing the sessions in collaboration with the researcher, who was
also a teacher in the integrated program. Through his nine years of experience as both teacher and
coordinator of the integrated program, Carlos had informally assembled information about the
program’s needs. Both the researcher and Carlos were in charge of designing and delivering the
training workshop.
Carlos established a detailed schedule for the coordination of all teachers participating in the
integrated program, which consisted in a three-week rotating system for a complete school year
including coordination between teachers, and training. One week, content teachers met with their
corresponding language specialist (i.e. the teacher teaching Physics in English would meet with the
English FL teacher); the following week, all course-level content teachers and language specialists
met with the coordinator for a briefing; and in the third week, all teachers participating in the
program attended a training session. The previous year, Carlos gave some training on CLIL and on
its principles.
The idea behind the workshop emerged from the necessity to unify teaching methodologies in the
program. Carlos wanted to standardize the program and give it a sense of uniformity across
disciplines and languages, because new teachers were incorporated to the program every year,
some of them without any teaching experience or knowledge of teaching content in another
language. Being part of the school’s teaching staff, and considering my expertise as a CLIL
researcher, Carlos asked me to contribute to the design and delivery of the workshop (see
Table 2). We considered the possibility of using the SIOP as a springboard and select only those
features that could meet the program’s needs, adapting them to the context of the integrated
program. Given the time constraints and teachers’ workload, the workshop needed to be as practical
and concise as possible, but it was also important to provide teachers with some fundamental
notions about integration. It is important to underscore that this was not a structured SIOP training,
but that the SIOP Model was used only to inform the design of a PD workshop contextualized in
a CLIL setting, so it did not cover all of SIOP’s 30 features.

Participants
There were 14 CLIL teachers who participated in the training sessions and completed the ques­
tionnaires at the end. Considering the scope of this study, two participant teachers were selected
from this group for interviews. They were selected based on their long-term experience teaching in
the school’s integrated program, so they were aware of what was expected from a CLIL teacher –
according to their experience and the PD training they had previously received at the school.
I decided to interview these teachers because I anticipated they could provide an extensive descrip­
tion of their experiences in the workshop and their opinions on the potential impact this SIOP-based
training could have on their teaching. The following is an individual account of the two participant
teachers who were interviewed (all names are pseudonyms).
Maria taught Physics and Chemistry in L2 English to a group in year 3 ESO. She had been
teaching in the school’s program for the last five years. The extensive training in CLIL she had
received came from the early stages of the program being implemented in the region. She had passed
the TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test) Cambridge on CLIL.
Silvia taught Geography and History in French to 4 different groups in years 3 and 4 ESO.
Given the shortage of certified teachers to teach CLIL in L2 French, she had assumed the
responsibility of teaching several groups and levels. She had been teaching in this program for
seven years. Regarding her training in CLIL, she voluntarily signed up for some training courses
offered by the regional department of education when she started working in the integrated
program.
6 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

Table 2. SIOP-inspired PD training sessions.

SIOP components Timeline and topic Activities
Lesson preparation & Session 1: Language in CLIL (I) Principles:
Building background ● social vs academic language
● academic language: content-specific language and general aca­
demic language
Strategies:
● explicit teaching: cognates, roots, prefixes and suffixes
● flashcards with vocabulary and posters with signal words
● 4 corners chart

Building background; Session 2: Cognition in CLIL Principles:

Strategies & ● Cognitive engagement to learn: plan tasks and questions LOTS
Interaction to HOTS (Bloom’s Taxonomy)
● Cognitive learning strategies: e.g. mnemonics, graphic organizers
● Interaction
Strategies:
● KWHL
● Think pair share
● SQP2RS (Squeepers)
● TPR and realia
● Jigsaw reading

Practice and Session 3: Language in CLIL (II) Principles:

application, & ● Identifying academic language: content and general academic
Strategies vocabulary, language skills and functions, grammar
● Scaffolding
Strategies:
● Sentence starters, prompts, writing frames
● Collaboration with language teacher

Lesson preparation Session 4: Objectives Principles:

● Language objectives determined by content
● Language objectives: consider proficiency, progression and skills
Strategies:
● Language contents to be considered: academic vocabulary,
grammar, skills and functions.
● Example of a lesson

Session 5: Identifying language Workshop:

and drafting objectives (I) ● Content and language teachers work together to identify aca­
demic language and draft content and language objectives of
a teaching unit.

Session 6: Identifying language Presentations and discussion:

and drafting objectives (II) ● Teachers present the outline of the unit they devised.
● Discussion

Session 7: Questionnaire Teachers fill out the end-of-training questionnaire

Data collection instruments

In order to meet the aims of this study, the collection of data was carried out through the use of three
instruments: observation of training sessions, semi-structured interviews, and a questionnaire.

Observation of the training sessions

Observations were unstructured (Given, 2008), providing a general view of what happened in
each session (e.g. teachers attending the session, sitting arrangements, and teachers’ participation
and relevant contributions). Being a participant-observer, because I was co-teaching the training,
I took notes after each training session through unstructured field noting (Busetto, Wick, &
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 7

Gumbinger, 2020). Observations helped reinforce the themes and provide insights into the
suitability of SIOP strategies in CLIL and into teachers’ receptiveness. So, data from observations
were not used as analytic data, but to support, contextualize and provide background to the data
coming from questionnaires and interviews, which were considered primary data in this study.
Training sessions took place once every three weeks and were designed based on the need to
provide CLIL teachers with practical tools that would allow them to put the theoretical tenets of the
approach into practice in their everyday-lessons (Pérez-Cañado, 2016). SIOP was used as a compass
for informing the design of the sessions and the type of activities and strategies suggested by
Echevarria et al. (2013).
This training took place in the 50-minute period that teachers in the program had allocated in
their schedule for collaboration with their L2 counterparts. Carlos wanted the sessions to include
brief brushstrokes of the theoretical basis of integration of content and L2 activities and strategies,
which were taken from SIOP (Echevarria et al., 2013). During the sessions, teachers participated by
doing the activities or strategies presented, or asking and answering questions.

Interview
The interview was conducted after the training had been completed. Each interview was carried out
by the researcher and took place at the school, for about 45 minutes. It was a semi-structured
interview and the questions dealt with the participants’ previous training and teaching experience in
the CLIL program, and how they structured their classes. The second part of the interview asked
about the teachers’ impressions with the training workshop received, their experience putting into
practice the strategies suggested, and their pedagogical and training needs. Finally, the interviewer
showed the participants a copy of the SIOP Observation Protocol – previously translated into
Spanish – and asked for the respondents’ receptiveness to use this tool and the aim to which they
would use it. Each interview was recorded and transcribed for data analysis.

Questionnaire
I designed a questionnaire that was administered after the training had been completed. It was
paper-based and anonymous and contained ten multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions from 1
to 5. There were 10 questions, divided into three groups: previous experience and training;
satisfaction with the sessions and their usefulness; and training needs and change of views
about the program. The questionnaire was taken by all 14 CLIL teachers participating in the
workshop.

Data analysis
Data from interviews and observations were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis for “identifying,
analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes)” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82). The sets of data from
interviews, questionnaires and observations of training were initially coded following descriptive coding
(Saldana, 2013) to identify topics in the data. The thematic analysis of data consisted of six stages,
according to Braun and Clarke (2006), p. 1) verbatim transcription of interviews and translation from
Spanish to English, and familiarization with all sets of data; 2) generation of initial codes; 3) search for
themes; 4) revision of themes; 5) naming of themes; and 6) the final production of the report.

Results
This section addresses the difficulties participants find in their lessons and the appropriateness of
SIOP to address them in PD training. Additionally, it includes participants’ response to the training
sessions and their receptiveness to the SIOP.
8 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

SIOP training and teachers’ receptiveness of using the Protocol

In their answers to the questionnaires, all participant teachers agreed that the sessions of the
workshop were useful to a high degree and that they all had put into practice some of the strategies
learned. The qualitative analysis of the answers also generated an overview of the results of the
training sessions.
The sessions that the majority of participants acknowledged benefitting from were those about
the use of different strategies to teach academic language (sessions 1 and 3. see Table 2). These
sessions taught teachers how to adapt content to the students’ levels of language proficiency
(Lesson Preparation); how to emphasize key language and use strategies to help students learn
new vocabulary (Building Background); how to use scaffolding techniques (Strategies); and
showed them examples of activities in which learners can apply content and language
(Practice & Application). Teachers showed interest in the difference between every day and
academic language and the role of the latter in learning content. Session 3 on the role of
academic language and how it should be taught together with content was considered the
most useful sessions. According to data from the questionnaire (see Table 3), the majority of
teachers (13) found this session useful, which aligns with the observations, where teachers
appeared to be very interested in the examples of tasks and strategies that they could use in
their classes, actively asking for more information and examples.
The other sessions that most teachers valued were sessions 5 and 6 (see Table 2) on identifying
linguistic content and designing content and language objectives. In this part of the workshop,
teachers were introduced to the importance of identifying the language that needs to be taught,
beyond the key vocabulary that is usually highlighted in all units. In the last two sessions, CLIL
content teachers were able to work collaborative with language teachers to identify linguistic content
and devise language objectives. When asked about this session, Silvia answered:
I worked with the other History teacher, who teaches the same course in English. We . . . worked individually
and then we discussed the contents we were going to teach and established a joint work plan, so we would teach
the same in English and in French. Then, with the French teacher, we translated it into French and then, she
worked with our History book and identified what [students] had to use.

This statement was supported by data from observations, where it was seen that when working with
their L2 counterparts, CLIL content teachers were able to focus on those aspects of the language that
we had previously discussed in the sessions about academic language, such as functional language.
Identifying linguistic content and sharing objectives with students was encouraging for the
participant teachers, as they realized the potential benefits of this practice for the learning process.
As an example of the positive response of students to the exercise of sharing content and language

Table 3. Data from questionnaires with number of participant responses in parentheses.

Year 1 (4 Year 2–4 (6 >5 years (4
participants) participants) participants)
To what extent do you think this workshop has been useful for your 4,5 4,3 5
teaching practice? (average 0 to 5)
Have you used any of the strategies learned in your CLIL classes? Yes (4) Yes (6) Yes (4)

Had you received any training in CLIL before this workshop? Yes (2) No (2) Yes (1) No (5) Yes (3) No (1)

To what extent are you satisfied with the training you have received 3,7 4,2 4,5
so far as a bilingual teacher? (average 0 to 5)

Did your view about the CLIL program change after the workshop? Yes (3) Maybe (1) Yes (5) Maybe (1) Yes (3) No (1)

Which session(s) did you find the most useful? Session 1 (2) Session 1 (2) Session 1 (1)
Session 2 (3) Session 2 (2) Session 2 (2)
Session 3 (4) Session 3 (6) Session 3 (3)
Sessions 4–6 (3) Sessions 4–6 (4) Sessions 4–6 (3)
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 9

objectives with them, Maria said: “My students participated in the activity, understood the objectives
and used them to assess their learning. It was very positive.”
Sessions 3, 4, 5 and 6 (see Table 2) focused, mainly, on the role of language in content classes, and
showed teachers how to use strategies that cater for both content and language. The fact that teachers
found these sessions the most useful (see Table 3) suggests that teachers are still unaware of the role
of language in CLIL and they consider it a separate component, believing that they need to create
additional tasks that focus only in language. Consequently, teachers believe they have no time to
teach the L1 curriculum in another language because adding language-focused tasks to their sessions
takes up a lot of time.
The response of both interviewed teachers when presented with a translated copy of the SIOP for
the first time (during the training sessions, the SIOP was not explicitly shared with teachers) was
positive. After reading the SIOP Observation Protocol, both teachers admitted that the document
would be useful as a guide to plan their lessons. Silvia, for example, said “I would use this as
a reference, a guide . . . for self-evaluation and . . . at least once a week or every two weeks.” Maria, on
the other hand, would also use it as a lesson-preparation document:
I recognize things that I would need to improve . . .. Based on this document, the main mistakes I see in my
teaching are language objectives. There is a lot to improve in that area. In general, in all the [features] referring
to language, there is a lot to improve in my classes . . . I think we should do it.

Despite classroom observations not being a common practice in Spain, teachers were not opposed to
the idea of being observed by a colleague or an administrator with the SIOP. For example, Maria was
very open to being observed and, in fact, found it very helpful to improve her own practice:
I totally agree with the idea of having other [teachers] come to my classes . . . I think it’s a very useful tool . . .
The educational inspection services should observe all of us . . ..seeking improvement not judgment.

Applicability of SIOP as PD training tool in the CLIL program

Concerns regarding time constraints to include linguistic-focused tasks in CLIL lessons were
a recurrent theme amongst interviewees. They had a shared vision of language as a separate entity
from content rather than an integrated element in their lessons, so teachers considered they had to
design specific tasks that focused on linguistic aspects. This misconception about the role of language
led teachers to believe they had less time to cover the curriculum than mainstream content counter­
parts, because they had to include language-specific tasks. Lack of time was a recurrent theme in the
interviews. As an example, Maria claimed that “we should include more linguistic activities. But
every time I tried, I backed down because it takes up a lot of time,” while Silvia added “the
curriculum is so vast and I only have three [teaching] hours. So it’s a challenge with the language.”
The PD training based on SIOP presented strategies to design tasks that integrate content and
language (see Table 2), such as jigsaws (session 2), or language frames (session 3), and introduced
other methods like the use of TPR and realia (session 2). Findings show that the majority of teachers
(13) found session 3 to be the most useful for them (see Table 3). These findings suggest that
teachers could benefit from training on ready-to-use SIOP-based strategies as a way of integrating
language to CLIL lessons, partially addressing the lack of time to carry out linguistic tasks.
Another aspect that emerged was teachers’ strong beliefs regarding their role as content teachers
and in the integrated program. In spite of the years working in the so-called bilingual schools (i.e.
schools that teach some content subjects in a FL, with a focus on CLIL) and their involvement with
the program, both teachers still displayed a content-teacher identity, distancing themselves from
language specialists and, consequently, from language teaching, and see the FL as a vehicle for
learning content but not as an object of learning. For example, Silvia said..
First, I want them to really understand [the content] in Spanish and [express it] fluently. Then, in French [I
demand] a minimum, because their level of French is very poor . . . Sometimes a lot of content knowledge is lost
10 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

if only the foreign language is used . . .. they learn more language but they miss on content . . . Students are not
bilingual and teachers have limited proficiency . . . I’m experienced in my [field].

There was a sense amongst interviewees that their role was to teach content, but not necessarily
making adjustments to deliver such content in another language. It should be the case that, as Maria
said, “teachers are very resistant to changing methodologies.” Instead of designing tasks that
integrated language and content, their unfamiliarity with the role of language integration led teachers
to consider language an additional load taking up teaching time. For example, Maria commented: “I
designed an ‘attempt’ of a mini-workbook with linguistic activities and I gave it up, because . . .
there’s no time for [doing] it all.”
A similar pattern was obtained in the questionnaire results (see Figure 1), which showed that the
most experienced CLIL teachers wanted to learn more about identifying and adapting linguistic
contents in their subjects. Novice CLIL teachers, on the other hand, reported a need to foster
students’ motivation and classroom management. So, it is presumed that teachers became aware of
the importance of integration of language and content as they became more familiar with this
approach, and more aware of the role of academic language in their classes.
These are important findings in the possibilities of the use of SIOP for PD training design. As
observed in the workshop, participants were not aware of the role of language in CLIL and were
receptive to learn strategies to teach academic language beyond key vocabulary (see Table 2 for
examples of strategies). The workshop also focused on the importance of identifying linguistic
content and formulating language-related learning objectives, a focal point of SIOP. Participants’
interest in the workshop was reported not only in the sessions, but also in the questionnaire, as the
majority of respondents confirmed their knowledge about the program somehow changed after the
workshop (see Table 3), and wished to receive more practical training with examples of tasks and
strategies (see Figure 2).
This result aligns with teachers’ reported lack of time to prepare their CLIL lessons, and their
reliance on a textbook. As an example of how some teachers consider that already-made materials
would save them some lesson preparation time, Silvia explained “I translated all the resources we
taught in Spanish into French . . ..The main problem is the lack resources. If I had a textbook . . . or
an e-book with already-made activities [it would be easier].”
Together, these findings suggest that teachers’ lack of language awareness and their self-
perceived role as content teachers could be hindering the integration of language in CLIL
lessons. Despite previous training and teaching experience, teachers need to understand the

Figure 1. CLIL areas in which teachers want to receive more training.

 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 11

Figure 2. Kind of training teachers would like to receive.

importance of teaching academic language in their classes, and they could benefit from PD
training based on SIOP, which provided practical strategies to identify linguistic content, to
devise language learning objectives, and to design tasks that integrate content and language. It
could be even argued that intensive and exact SIOP training, could potentially help CLIL
teachers plan for academic language in their content classes.

Discussion
This case study showed that SIOP could be a valuable tool to adopt in the CLIL integrated program
to ease teachers’ task of integrating language into content lessons, something that teachers struggle
with or, simply, do not know how to carry out.
The study revealed that participants had difficulties incorporating linguistic content in their
classes. Those difficulties stemmed from teachers’ lack of awareness about the role of academic
language in content classes beyond key vocabulary, something very common in content specialists
who are not trained in language teaching, in accordance with findings from previous studies
(Hansen-Thomas et al., 2018; Lo, 2019). Teachers in this study, had to design specific tasks to
focus on language learning, which was time consuming. As a result, language took a secondary role,
being used as the language of communication, but adopting an incidental role in learning. However,
this could be the result of teachers’ lack of linguistic awareness, so their knowledge of language
learning and teaching is replaced by the teachers’ previous experiences as language learners. Their
conceptualization of language still resembles more that of EFL teaching (Morton, 2018), where
linguistic content is taught explicitly (e.g. teaching of grammatical rules). The role of academic
language is undeniably important in learning, but it is usually overlooked in CLIL content classes, as
a consequence of teachers’ lack of language awareness and the absence of pedagogic tools for
integration (Coyle et al., 2018). This lack of language awareness in CLIL teachers can be detrimental
for the successful implementation of different programs and students’ learning (Dalton-Puffer,
2013). Participant teachers continued to display a strong identity as content specialist, something
that could also affect their choice of content-led teaching practices (Lo, 2019). CLIL teachers – and
teachers of ELLs – have not been trained as such, so when they start teaching content and language
12 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

integrated, they usually have an already-established teacher identity, that not only depends on the
initial teacher education they received and their teaching experience, but also on their investment in
the imagined community of practice (Bárcena-Toyos, in press).
The results suggest that teachers were receptive of the use of SIOP and their response to the
workshop (based on SIOP) was positive. Additionally, six out of 14 participants had received
previous PD training on CLIL. However, both teachers revealed that they still had difficulties to
integrate language in their classes in a systematic way, despite their years of teaching experience and
PD training in CLIL. This could be due to the fact that “one-shot workshops” are not enough to
change teacher practice (Short, 2013, p. 121). Instead, PD programs should be designed according to
the needs of language learners who have to learn academic language and content simultaneously and,
therefore, those programs should include effective pedagogical strategies (Short, 2013) that teachers
can learn to use in “tailored courses” that address their needs (Pérez-Cañado, 2018, p. 218). This type
of integrated PD should be extensive and systematic, thereby allowing teachers to focus more on
content and language in an integrated manner (Coral et al., 2020), rather than designing separate
tasks to address language learning. Considering these factors as well as the participants’ positive
receptiveness in adopting SIOP and their positive attitudes toward PD, we can conclude that SIOP
could be an important tool to design effective PD as a response to the difficulties that CLIL teachers
experience for the integration of language in content classes, and to contribute to a new teacher
identity formation.
Receiving intensive training in SIOP could help teachers incorporate new practices and strategies
that integrate academic language in their content instruction (Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Canges, &
Francis, 2011), not through additional tasks but through the systematic adaptation and integration of
the L2 into their everyday CLIL lessons. There is evidence to support that comprehensive profes­
sional training which incorporates effective pedagogical strategies combined with an explanation of
the theories of language learning behind them (Short, 2013) has an ensuing effect on teacher’s
academic language awareness (Hansen-Thomas et al., 2018; Lo, 2019) and on their attitudes toward
learning content and language in an integrated way (Song, 2016). Based on the results of this study,
training at schools should be supported by coordinators and the administration, who should work
hand in hand to assure that CLIL teachers’ training is viable and permanent (Short, 2013).
Collaboration of language teachers in PD training is also highly recommended to help content
teachers in the identification of language content (Meskill & Oliveira, 2019; Pavón et al, 2015). It is
important to acknowledge the realities of teachers and the fact that those realities evolve throughout
the years, the same as their needs. It is unrealistic to expect teachers to achieve all the skills they need
to teach a content subject in L2 without well-informed, continuous training.
While the results of this study are based on a case study of a particular school, given its context
and characteristics of the program, similar to those of other bilingual schools in Spain with a focus
on CLIL, it is believed that findings here are important for further research in the area of PD in CLIL
teachers. It is acknowledged that the limited number of participant teachers may not be representa­
tive of other teachers’ realities, including less experienced teachers in the field of teaching content in
another language, and that is why these are tentative conclusions that should be researched in depth.
Further studies with a larger number of participants, including the use of the SIOP for planning
lessons are advised. Similarly, if the recommendations for practice of this study are followed,
a longitudinal study about the effectiveness of extensive and systematic training in SIOP for CLIL
teachers is expected, as well as the observation of lessons with the SIOP protocol. However, training
should always be tailored to the group of teachers and the SIOP could be adapted accordingly,
focusing on those features that cater to their needs.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 13

ORCID
Patricia Bárcena-Toyos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2942-1768

References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., (Eds.) Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Wittrock,
M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives (Complete ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Bárcena-Toyos, P. (in press). Teacher identity in CLIL: Acase study of in-service teachers. Latin American Journal of
Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Bárcena-Toyos, P. (2020). Teachers’ classroom practices to achieve integration of content and language in CLIL. NABE
Journal of Research and Practice, 10(3–4), 94–106. doi:10.1080/26390043.2021.1890989
Bertaux, P., Coonan, C. M., Frigols, M. J., & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’s competence grid. CLIL Cascade
Network. https://www.ccn-clil.eu/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological
Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–10. doi:10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
Cabezuelo-Gutiérrez, P., & Fernández-Fernández, R. (2014). A case study on teacher training needs in the Madrid
Bilingual project. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(2), 50–70. doi:10.5294/
laclil.2014.7.2.3
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion
teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied
Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. doi:10.1093/applin/amt011
Coral, J., Urbiola, M., Sabaté, E., Bofill, J., Lleixà, T., & Vilà Baños, R. (2020). Does the teaching of physical education
in a foreign language jeopardise children’s physical activity time? A pilot study. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 839–854. doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1407289
Coyle, D. (2002). From little acorns. In D. So & G. M. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (pp.
37–55). Brussels: Brussels University Press.
Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Meyer, O., & Schuck, K. (2018). Knowledge ecology for conceptual growth: Teachers as active
agents in developing a pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning (PTL). International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 349–365. doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1387516
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (Vol. 23). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Custodio Espinar, M., & García Ramos, J. M. (2020). Are accredited teachers equally trained for CLIL? The CLIL
teacher paradox. Porta Linguarum, 33, 9–25.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integra­
tion in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. doi:10.1515/eujal-
2013-0011
Durán-Martínez, R., & Beltrán-Llavador, F. (2020). Key issues in teachers’ assessment of primary education bilingual
programs in Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(2), 170–183. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2017.1345851
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP Model to promote the acquisition
of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334–351. doi:10.1080/
15235882.2011.623600
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model.
New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Franco-Fuenmayor, S. E., Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (2015). Investigating bilingual/ESL teachers’ knowledge
and professional development opportunities in a large suburban school district in Texas. Bilingual Research Journal,
38(3), 336–352. doi:10.1080/15235882.2015.1091049
Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc.
Hansen-Thomas, H., Langman, J., & Sokoloski, T. F. (2018). The role of language objectives: Strengthening math and
science teachers’ language awareness with emergent bilinguals in secondary classrooms. LACLIL, 11(2), 193–214.
doi:10.5294/laclil.2018.11.2.2
14 P. BÁRCENA-TOYOS

Jover, G., Fleta, T., & González, R. (2016). La Formación inicial de los Maestros de Educación Primaria en el contexto
de la enseñanza bilingüe en lengua extranjera. Bordón, Revista de Pedagogía, 68(2), 121–135. doi:10.13042/
Bordon.2016.68208
Karabassova, L. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Evidence
from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–13. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2018.1550048
Kareva, V., & Echevarria, J. (2013). Using the SIOP model for effective content teaching with second and foreign
language learners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 239–248. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i2.173
Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy:
A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136.
doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.889974
Lo, Y. Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does
professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 818–832.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1318821
Lucero, A. (2015). Dual language teachers’ use of conventional, environmental, and personal resources to support
academic language development. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(1), 107–123. doi:10.1080/15235882.2015.1017028
Lyster, R. (2019). Making research on instructed SLA relevant for teachers through professional development.
Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 494–513. doi:10.1177/1362168818776667
MacSwan, J. (2020). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based
language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28–36. doi:10.1177/1362168818777540
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M. (2010). The European framework for CLIL teacher education. Graz,
Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML).
Martin, A. D. (2018). Teacher identities and English learners in mainstream classrooms: A discourse analysis. Critical
Inquiry in Language Studies, 16(2), 130–151. doi:10.1080/15427587.2018.1471693
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Meskill, C., & Oliveira, A. W. (2019). Meeting the challenges of English Learners by Pairing science and language
educators. Research in Science Education, 49(4), 1025–1040. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9837-9
Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language
integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–286.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual
education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pavón Vázquez, V., Ávila López, J., Gallego Segador, A., & Espejo Mohedano, R. (2015). Strategic and organisational
considerations in planning content and language integrated learning: A study on the coordination between content
and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 409–425. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2014.909774
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in content and language integrated
learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena: Revista Do Programa Doutoral Em Didáctica de Línguas da Universidade Do
Porto, 4, 65–78.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2014). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.980778
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(2), 202–221. doi:10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1–10.
doi:10.1080/00405841.2018.1492238
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory Into Practice, 52(2),
118–127. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770329
Song, K. H. (2016). Systematic professional development training and its impact on teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs:
SIOP and guided coaching. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 767–799. doi:10.1002/tesj.240
van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020). Do we all share the same goals for content and
language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the
Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 855–871. doi:10.1080/
13670050.2017.1411332